Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(15) In M. P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, in which there was a discussion of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, it was explained that the Central Government exercising revisional jurisdiction under rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, exercises judicial power as a tribunal whose decision is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Subba Rao J. as he then was from whose exposition of this particular aspect of the matter there was no dissent by the other two Judges, said this:

(16) The decision in Indo-China S. Navign. Co. v. Jasjit Singh, rested on the enunciation that the Central Board of Revenue exercising appellate power under section 190 of the Sea Customs Act and the Central Government invested with revisional power under Section 191 were tribunals from whose decisions an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution was possible Gajendragadkar C. J. said this:

"In our opinion, having regard to the scheme of the sections which we have just cited, there is no difficulty in holding that the Central Board of Revenue which functions as an appellate authority, and the Central Government which exercises revisional powers are both tribunals within the meaning of Article 136 of the Constitution. A dispute is raised either by way of appeal or revision by the party aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs Officers, and that dispute has to be tried by the appellate or the revisional authority in the light of the facts adduced in the proceedings and according to law". (P. 1148) (17) So it is plain that the Government of India which exercised in the case before us revisional jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Central Excise Act, functioned only as a tribunal.
Provided that......
(2) Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject to the power of revision conferred by section 36, be final.
36. Revision by Central Government-

The Central Government may on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any Central Excise officer or by the Central Board of Revenue, and from which no appeal lies, reverse or modify such decision or order."

(19) It will be seen from these two provisions that there is great similarity between the powers exercised by the Customs Officer under the Sea Customs Act and that exercised by a Central Excise officer who makes an order from which an appeal lies under Section 35. Similarly, there is similitude between the appellate power exercised by the Central Board of Revenue under the Sea Customs Act and that exercised by the appellate authority under Section 35 of the Excise Act. Likewise, the revisional power of the Central Government under Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act is comparable to the revisional power exercised by the Central Government under Section 36 of the Excise Act. Under both these laws, the aggrieved party could bring up a matter by way of an appeal or revision before the appellate authority and before the revisional authority which has to decide the question which is so brought up in the light of the facts adduced in the proceedings and according to law as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of . In exercising that power, the appellate authority and the Central Government functions as tribunals and do not figure as disputants.